What is the meaning or justification of the proposed surrender by England of every compensation for Irish Home Rule which was offered her in 1886?
For this surrender Gladstonians assign but two reasons.
The presence of the Irish members at Westminster is, it is said, a concession to the wishes of Unionists.
This plea, even were it supported by the facts of the case, would be futile.

It might pass muster with disputants in search of a verbal triumph, but to any man seriously concerned for the welfare of the nation must appear childishly irrelevant.

The welfare of the State cannot turn upon the neatness of a _tu quoque_; retorts are not reasons, and had every Unionist, down from the Duke of Devonshire to the present writer, pressed in 1886 for the retention of the Irish members at Westminster, the controversial inexpertness of the Unionists seven years ago would not diminish the dangers with which, under a system of Home Rule, the presence of the Irish members at Westminster actually threatens England.

But the plea, futile as it is, is not supported by fact.

It rests on a misrepresentation of the Unionist position in 1886.
'The case in truth stands thus:--Mr.Gladstone was [in 1886] placed in effect in this dilemma: "If you do not," said his opponents, "retain the Irish representatives at Westminster, the sovereignty of the British Parliament will be, under the terms of your Bill, no more than a name; if you do retain them, Great Britain will lose the only material advantage offered her in exchange for the local independence of Ireland." Gladstonians, in substance, replied that the devices embodied in the Government of Ireland Bill at once freed the British Parliament from the presence of the Parnellites and safeguarded the sovereignty of the British, or (for in this matter there was some confusion) of the Imperial Parliament.